LDS Freedom Forum

LukeAir2008 wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:

KalelIsbell wrote:are we still talking about traffic laws???

LOL

No...

By mentioning the word "Libertarian", the hair on the back of the Socialists necks stood on end and a conversation ensued.

I'm a Libertarian, Freeman, Classical Liberal, Modern Conservative, Constitutionalist.

I'm anti-Socialist.

Isn't it a contradiction to say you're a Libertarian AND a Modern Conservative. Modern Conservatives are just Socialists with a Conservative label. If you'd said Paleo-Conservative then I would have understood?

We have been having this discussion on another thread. I have been telling this young man that he is not a Libertarian and he keep demanding that he is all evidence o the contrary.

I am glad you see the same problems with this reasoning that I see. He obviously has it wrong. But then he is obviously young too. Hopefully he will get it. You cannot be a registered Republican and a libertarian at the same time. That is like being a Buddhist and LDS at the same time.

LukeAir2008 wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:

KalelIsbell wrote:are we still talking about traffic laws???

LOL

No...

By mentioning the word "Libertarian", the hair on the back of the Socialists necks stood on end and a conversation ensued.

I'm a Libertarian, Freeman, Classical Liberal, Modern Conservative, Constitutionalist.

I'm anti-Socialist.

Isn't it a contradiction to say you're a Libertarian AND a Modern Conservative. Modern Conservatives are just Socialists with a Conservative label. If you'd said Paleo-Conservative then I would have understood?

I don't know what modern conservatism means to you, but to me it means conserving the Constitution and what little freedoms we have left.

...at some point, though, seeking for freedom will be a move away from the norm, and suddenly modern-liberal (ie: someone seeking "change") would more correctly fit the label. That's why I tend to use the terms Libertarian versus Socialist instead of Conservative/Liberal.

Wiikwajio wrote:

LukeAir2008 wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:...

LOL

No...

By mentioning the word "Libertarian", the hair on the back of the Socialists necks stood on end and a conversation ensued.

I'm a Libertarian, Freeman, Classical Liberal, Modern Conservative, Constitutionalist.

I'm anti-Socialist.

Isn't it a contradiction to say you're a Libertarian AND a Modern Conservative. Modern Conservatives are just Socialists with a Conservative label. If you'd said Paleo-Conservative then I would have understood?

We have been having this discussion on another thread. I have been telling this young man that he is not a Libertarian and he keep demanding that he is all evidence o the contrary.

I am glad you see the same problems with this reasoning that I see. He obviously has it wrong. But then he is obviously young too. Hopefully he will get it. You cannot be a registered Republican and a libertarian at the same time. That is like being a Buddhist and LDS at the same time.

So Ron Paul is not a Libertarian? He was registered Republican in the last presidential election.

Many, many words, and lots of questions as answers to questions.

You either do not have the answers you imply you do (because you don't hand them out), or you are unwilling to hand them out... either way you appear to be a waste of my time.

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote: I've also met many people who can talk fancy and make it seem like they're running circles around you... and most of them are charlatans hiding the truth behind parlor tricks in their attempts to "pull a fast one on you".

Again I feel your pain. I keep waiting for you to show me the laws you claim I violate. AS yet you have been unable to.

I have not attempted to.

I do not know if you are breaking laws. It sounded before that you yourself were making that claim. I cannot claim whether you are or are not breaking laws.

I would ask you directly if you're breaking laws, but I doubt you would answer it directly... but it's worth a shot.

Do you abide by all Federal and Local governmental laws?

...and yet you've shown you're inability to answer a question in 1 sentence that does not end with a question mark.

Wiikwajio wrote: A man that cannot show me the law he claims I violate is worse than a charlatan. He is a tyrant or a tyrant in training. He cannot be trusted. Wouldn't you agree?

What's the exchange rate? If I answer one of your questions, will you answer one of mine?

You've stated an absolute. Absolutes are very rarely true, so I would answer: "No".

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:Yes, you answered the question about why the Church hasn't set out to liberate the members from Socialism. Well worded and I agree. Thanks.

I don't answer question and did not answer that question. I let Ezra Taft Benson answer that question. I let the Supreme Court answer questions. I let Senator Ensign and Senator Reid and the IRS and Social Security Administration and Congress answer questions. I am just an ignorant high school drop out. I know nothing except what others teach me.

Ah... now I understand you.

You appear to be very similar to a co-worker of mine at my last job. he also was a high-school drop out who went through severe low-self-esteem because he had been told for so long that he was a "good-for-nothing".

While looking for something to base his self-esteem on, he started absorbing vast amounts of information (without sufficient filters) in the hopes that he could better other people, as if they represented those who, during his childhood, made him feel ignorant.

Is that what this is? Do you want people to shower you with adulation for your knowledge? Is your perceived throne of superior intellect secure only if you show off how much you know without sharing what you know?

Is this your "foundation"?

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:...but you haven't answered the question as to whether you believe the Apostles pay taxes or not and whether they file tax-returns or not.

First I would have to know if they are liable. I don't so I cannot answer that question because I do not have enough information that is documentable. Do you have any proof they file and pay? Are they persons liable as per the IRC and does the IRC apply to them? Are they Federal personnel? Do they have income in dollars that exceeds the filing limit? Do they know what a dollar is? Are they corporate officers? Are Corporate officers persons liable? Has the Lord told them to file because the Elder of Israel have not done their job and so the Lord wants to place the blame and sin upon the Elders?

I don't know so why not find out and get back to me with your proof?

I don't know, and I don't really care to know, because I'm not seeking to support non-temperate blanket statements labeling all those pay taxes, when you believe they don't have to, as supporters of Socialism and evil.

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:You previously posted that you believe that anyone filing tax-returns is evil and they support Socialism... this is why the question was brought up regarding whether you understand the apostles file or not, etc...

I do not remember using those words.

Not those "words"... but that "meaning"?

Wiikwajio wrote: In general I believe that but some people are 100% liable as far as I can tell. If you are a federal employee then you are liable for the Income tax because it is a return of money received from the Federal Government as per my current understanding. US Corporate officers are, to the best of my knowledge, also liable. But people that volunteer to pay a Socialist tax that are not persons made liable are IMHO not faithful members.

There you go. Although that's more tame than you're previous statements on this, it still is the subject I'm addressing.

Ok... so let me try a more specific question:

"Do you believe that all non-liable apostles don't pay taxes?"

Or, in other words... according to your own terminology...

"Do you believe that any apostles are "not faithful members"?"

Wiikwajio wrote: They may sin in ignorance but the ignorance is self-imposed.

Oh, grand.

Wiikwajio wrote: So if you want to take the time to debate these issues instead of thinking you can place me on the witness stand and demand that it is only my duty to answer questions, then let us go forward.

I don't have as much time to devote to these forums as you appear to have.

Why should being called to be a witness trouble you so? Isn't that your duty, as a follower of Jesus Christ?

Wiikwajio wrote: But if you want me to answer YOUR questions, you WILL answer mine also or I will continue to sidestep your questions like a 45 year politician can so easily do.

You know... that's not necessarily a good talent to have...

TonyOlsen wrote:
So Ron Paul is not a Libertarian? He was registered Republican in the last presidential election.

Ron Paul and you are not in agreement of what libertarian even means.

And no, Ron Paul is not a Libertarian. He is a Republican. He may be a libertarian but you and he do not agree on several principle beliefs.

You truly are what is commonly called a conservative or even a Neocon. A libertarian or Libertarian you are not. This does not mean you are evil. I am certainly not a libertarian nor a Libertarian so I don't think it is a bad thing to be something other than a libertarian or a Libertarian.

So is this a discussion about traffic laws or about separating individuals into political camps? It seems to me to be the latter.

TonyOlsen wrote:Many, many words, and lots of questions as answers to questions.

You either do not have the answers you imply you do (because you don't hand them out), or you are unwilling to hand them out... either way you appear to be a waste of my time.

Christ answered questions with questions. Does he waste your time? When you are ready to answer my questions one for one then I will answer your questions one for one. I am not on the witness stand and you have refused to answer my questions. When you agree to answer my questions one for one then you will get answers. Until then I will treat you as you treat me. Golden rule and all that.

TonyOlsen wrote: I would ask you directly if you're breaking laws, but I doubt you would answer it directly... but it's worth a shot.

Well show me the law you think I may be breaking and I will tell you all I know about it if you will answer my questions in kind. If not then you do not want your question answered.

TonyOlsen wrote:Do you abide by all Federal and Local governmental laws?

Are you willing to answer my question? Mine would be give me the current definition of the U.S. Dollar as defined by the United States Congress as per Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

And your question is too vague to be answered directly. Tell me what law you are specifically asking about and I will respond IF you will answer my question in kind. I cannot tell you if I abide by all Federal and Local government laws because I do not know if such laws even apply to me. I certainly do not abide by Federal reporting laws concerning oil development and drilling because I am not required to. Many local laws do not apply to me. For example residents of Clark County that buy pistols in Clark County are required to register that pistol in 72 hours. I do not abide such law as per Webster's definition #3 as I do not "accept it without objection" since it is unconstitutional, I did not buy a pistol within 72 hours and I am not a "resident" of Clark County. So if a Cop asks me if my pistol is registered I would tell him to shut up, leave me alone and go away.

Main Entry: abide
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈbīd\
Function: verb
1 : to wait for : await
2 a : to endure without yielding : withstand b : to bear patiently : tolerate <cannot abide such bigots>
3 : to accept without objection <will abide your decision>
intransitive verb

TonyOlsen wrote:What's the exchange rate? If I answer one of your questions, will you answer one of mine?

One for one and you can ask first as you already have done and I have answered below. We also need to determine what on-line dictionary you want to use for words like "abide." As you can see your use of the word was VERY vague. Words often have many meanings so to properly ask your question you would need to use words that have specific meanings and ask me a non-vague question.

For example if you asked me if I believed in God and I said I did but did not tell you I believed that Thor was God then I would have answered truthfully but you would not have the answer to your question that you thought you had.

TonyOlsen wrote:Ah... now I understand you.

You appear to be very similar to a co-worker of mine at my last job. he also was a high-school drop out who went through severe low-self-esteem because he had been told for so long that he was a "good-for-nothing".

If there is one thing I do not suffer from it is low self-esteem when comparing myself to other humans. I am a published author, ran my own successful businesses and have been happily married to the same lady for 32 years. I have accomplished what many would consider to be miracles in court and politically. A few years ago I accomplished every single thing I had listed that I wanted to accomplish in my life and now have to write new list. I took a hardly breathing minor political party in Nevada and turned it into a power house in 4 years. I am now building an on-line news organization that has gone for 3000 readers a month to 10,000 in 6 months. I am at the top of my field in IRS/RFRA legal studies and preparation for criminal and civil cases. I am an expert witness. I have just accepted the job of Attorney General for a small but up-and-coming Religious internationally recognized sovereign neutral state. Self esteem problems, in comparing myself to other humans, is not a problem for me.

I just realize that my opinion with you has no value. I understand the person I am communicating with and so I give answers from people you MAY respect since mine would be of little to no value to you.

TonyOlsen wrote:...but you haven't answered the question as to whether you believe the Apostles pay taxes or not and whether they file tax-returns or not.

You seem to think that if the Apostles owe, you owe. That would be an assumption with no proof. If you owe it does not mean that I owe. This is back to the Thor/God question. Your questions are vague so answering them with a questions is often all I can do.

If you asked me do I believe in Jesus Christ and I was a Calvinist I could say "Yes" but it has little to no truth in it since Calvinists do not even know who Jesus Christ is. When you ask if I believe the Apostles pay taxes or not I could easily answer "Yes" since everyone pay taxes.

Do they file returns or not? I do not know. They certainly have not told you or I personally nor published it tot he best of my knowledge. It is speculation at best. I think there is one Apostle that had the opinion that they all filed and paid but then how would he know? Did he watch them file? Did he watch them pay income taxes? Did he even ask them? What did the form say? Were they required to file? Did they meet the filing limit requirement? Did they file a Utah Return? Do they have resident status in Utah? Are they required to file in Utah if the live in Germany?

I pay taxes. Eery time I buy gas I pay. I do not file returns because I am not required to do so. I cannot be required to do so until the government can prove many things. To date they have not even tried. Now if the Prophet wanted to fight the legality of the tax law he may do it the way Brigham Young fought polygamy laws and ask a member to challenge them so that he would be able to run the Church while the other man fought in Court. So if Benson or McKay or any other Apostle fought the IRS we may never even know. But by all means bring forth your evidence if you have proof.

TonyOlsen wrote:I don't know, and I don't really care to know, because I'm not seeking to support non-temperate blanket statements labeling all those pay taxes, when you believe they don't have to, as supporters of Socialism and evil.

If you do not know and do not care then why are you asking the questions? I can label people with what I do know. I know members are to eschew Socialism. I know what several different American English dictionaries define the word eschew to mean. I know that a Socialist is a person that practices socialism and I know that Social Security, Income tax, Government schools and the Federal Reserve System are all important parts of Marxism/Socialism. I know that if you practice several parts of the important doctrines of a religious belief (and socialism is a religious belief) then it is reasonable to say that person is a practicing whatever faith he is practicing in substantial ways. If I go to the Church of Thor and I wear mjolnir around my neck and want to go to Valhalla it would be reasonable to say I worship or follow Thor even if I go to the Mormon Church and practice some of their rites too.

Therefore it is very simple to state that if you are a practicing socialist you are not following the publish doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as members are to eschew socialism and other false isms.

It would be no more difficult than for you to label me an adulterer if I was having sex with a woman that was not my wife. Words have meaning. Doctrine that is clearly stated and has not been changed is doctrine no matter what apostles do or say or have an opinion about. Several Apostles have been exed. Official statements by the First Presidency are not opinions.

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:You previously posted that you believe that anyone filing tax-returns is evil and they support Socialism... this is why the question was brought up regarding whether you understand the apostles file or not, etc...

I do not remember using those words.

Not those "words"... but that "meaning"?[/quote]

The way you think as to what words "mean" is one of the major problems in these discussions. You seem to think vague questions are not vague or that clear answers are not clear. I do not believe I used the words you used and I believe that my words did not say what you claim I said.

People that practice socialism are socialists unless Webster's is wrong:

Main Entry: so·cial·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-sh(ə-)list\
Function: noun
Date: 1827
1 : one who advocates or practices socialism

It is not vague or presumptive or assumptive. if you are practicing socialism then you are a socialist. Therefore I believe that every person that practices socialism is a socialist UNLESS they are being brutally forced and without even the choice of rebellion and/or war to practice that Satanic doctrine. If President Monson is practicing socialism, then according to Webster's dictionary President Monson is a socialist. There is no moral question. 1 + 1 = 2.

So IF you cannot be a faithful member of the church and be a practicing socialist then President Monson is not a faithful member according to THOSE parameters. Therefore the discussion must be: What is LDS official published doctrine on the subject? It is not what President Monson is or is not. The discussion is ONLY: What is the LDS official published doctrine on this subject? Then after that is decided and agreed upon it would have to be determined if President Monson was a practicing socialist. If he was AND the official published doctrine of the Church is that you cannot be a practicing socialist and a faithful member then 1+1=2. If A =B and B=C then C=A. Therefore If you cannot be a faithful member of the Church and be a practicing Socialist at the same time AND President Monson is a practicing Socialist THEN BY THOSE SET STANDARDS AND RULES President Monson could not be a faithful member of the Church. If there are OTHER parameters then the question changes as does the answer.

It is like this: If President Monson was currently a practicing polygamist and it is LDS official published doctrine that a member practicing polygamy must be excommunicated would President Monson be excommunicated for practicing polygamy? I think that will be my first question for you.

TonyOlsen wrote:There you go. Although that's more tame than you're previous statements on this, it still is the subject I'm addressing.

Ok... so let me try a more specific question:

"Do you believe that all non-liable apostles don't pay taxes?"

Or, in other words... according to your own terminology...

"Do you believe that any apostles are "not faithful members"?"

I believe that if the Official published doctrine of the church is: "Latter-day Saints can not be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies." And I believe that is the doctrine since I can find no other and it is still on LDS.org then if an Apostle is filing a non-required voluntary return that I believe obviously lends aid, encouragement or sympathy to the false doctrines of Fascism, Socialism, Marxism or Communism then any Apostle that is lending such aid, encouragement or sympathy to the false doctrines of false isms cannot, according the official published doctrine of the Church, that has not changed since it was stated, MUST BE unfaithful. A =B and B=C then C=A.

Either that or the official doctrine of the Church is false.

Now answer my question: If President Monson was currently a practicing polygamist and it is LDS official published doctrine that a member practicing polygamy must be excommunicated would President Monson be excommunicated for practicing polygamy?

Wiikwajio wrote: So if you want to take the time to debate these issues instead of thinking you can place me on the witness stand and demand that it is only my duty to answer questions, then let us go forward.

TonyOlsen wrote:I don't have as much time to devote to these forums as you appear to have.

I have played chess by mail. You have enough time to answer my questions if you have time to ask yours.

TonyOlsen wrote:Why should being called to be a witness trouble you so? Isn't that your duty, as a follower of Jesus Christ?

I am a student of Christ. He asked questions and refused to answer the questions of men that would not answer His questions. Naturally He knew that the men had motives that disagreed with Christ's beliefs as you do mine. The person asking the question has all the power. I do not allow men to have power over me because I render unto myself what is my own as I am commanded to do by Christ.

Matt: 21:23 ¶ And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a aprophet.
27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

So I will follow Christ's example and you will answer my questions in kind or I will not answer your questions any more.

Wiikwajio wrote: But if you want me to answer YOUR questions, you WILL answer mine also or I will continue to sidestep your questions like a 45 year politician can so easily do.

TonyOlsen wrote:You know... that's not necessarily a good talent to have...

But it is mine and Christ did it to the chief priests and the elders of the people so if Christ did it then I will be happy that He has given that talent to me and treasure it and not cast my pearls before swine.

I am now awaiting your answer to my question which is: If President Monson was currently a practicing polygamist and it is LDS official published doctrine that a member practicing polygamy must be excommunicated would President Monson be excommunicated for practicing polygamy?

jnjnelson wrote:So is this a discussion about traffic laws or about separating individuals into political camps? It seems to me to be the latter.

It was ALWAYS about separating individuals into political camps. If I ask you a question about any legal issue then your answer will place you on a side of a political issue.

For example. If I ask you if you support the current drivers license laws or your State, and you answer yes, then I know that you support 42 USC Section 666(a)(13)(A) or that you are ignorant of that law.

You are then either:

A. Practicing Republican/Fascist or supporter
B. Practicing Democrat/Marxist or supporter
C. Some other Fascist/Commie loving party member or supporter
D. Ignorant of the laws on this issue.

If you said no then I would know that you are:

A. A supporter of individual liberty and oppose tyranny
B. A criminal
C. An Anarchist
D. Ignorant of the law

Then as we write I would learn more about your position and what Camp you are in.

Most people on this forum are seduced into the plans of Gadianton Robberism and/or ignorantly practicing members of of those plans or are Very dedicated to liberty and freedom.

I am still trying to figure out most of them.

I am considered to be:

A. A crazy radical right-wing extremist
B. An apostate
C. A person deserving of excommunication
D. A well informed patriot in the mold of Sam Adams
E. A lunatic that is ignorant of the law

Hopefully you have not yet decided.

Wiikwajio wrote:

jnjnelson wrote:So is this a discussion about traffic laws or about separating individuals into political camps? It seems to me to be the latter.

It was ALWAYS about separating individuals into political camps.

I perceive absolutely no value whatsoever in such a discussion. Can you provide a principled, rational reason for such a discussion, please?

jnjnelson wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:

jnjnelson wrote:So is this a discussion about traffic laws or about separating individuals into political camps? It seems to me to be the latter.

It was ALWAYS about separating individuals into political camps.

I perceive absolutely no value whatsoever in such a discussion. Can you provide a principled, rational reason for such a discussion, please?

It is very difficult to discuss anything with anybody that is as complete as politics and religion.

For example:

What is a Christian?

Does a Catholic believe that you are a Christian?

What is a Conservative.

What is a Libertarian?

What is a Liberal?

What is right-wing?

What is left-wing?

I have, in the Largest Newspaper in Nevada, and other smaller ones, been called an Ultra-Conservative. What is that?

Until you know what the individual actually believes it is difficult to have an HONEST discussion with them because what a patriot is to a military man is very different from a member of the ACLU.

Is it patriotic to fight against the government?

Is it patriotic to refuse to obey unseen unwritten laws?

Should Christian obey evil laws?

Should Christian openly defy eil laws?

What is defined as an evil law?

What is a dollar?

I ask questions to calculate what an individual actually believes and not what they label themselves so that I can understand them.

If you call me a Mormon I would be insulted. If you called me LDS or Christian I would not be insulted.

What people presume about others often make discussions ridiculous.

After all we are to: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thes. 5: 21

Wiikwajio wrote:… I ask questions to calculate what an individual actually believes and not what they label themselves so that I can understand them.

If you call me a Mormon I would be insulted. If you called me LDS or Christian I would not be insulted.

What people presume about others often make discussions ridiculous.

After all we are to: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thes. 5: 21

First: did you want me to answer any of the fourteen questions you asked, or were they rhetorical? I would answer the questions, but I feel doing so would be increasingly off-topic for this particular thread, and each question might merit its own thread.


Second: I find significant contradiction between these two statements:

Wiikwajio wrote:I ask questions to calculate what an individual actually believes and not what they label themselves so that I can understand them.
…
What people presume about others often make discussions ridiculous.

The reason I find contradiction is because any calculation you (or anyone) might make about what someone else believes inherently includes a ridiculous amount of presumption.

1 Thes. 5: 21 wrote:Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Notice that the scripture in 1st Thessalonians invites the reader to prove all things, not prove all people. Our discussions should be about diligently seeking the truth, not about diligently seeking to know whether specific individuals follow the truth.

I found no principled, rational justification in your comments for a discussion who's purpose includes separating individuals into different political camps.

jnjnelson wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:… I ask questions to calculate what an individual actually believes and not what they label themselves so that I can understand them.

If you call me a Mormon I would be insulted. If you called me LDS or Christian I would not be insulted.

What people presume about others often make discussions ridiculous.

After all we are to: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thes. 5: 21

First: did you want me to answer any of the fourteen questions you asked, or were they rhetorical? I would answer the questions, but I feel doing so would be increasingly off-topic for this particular thread, and each question might merit its own thread.


Second: I find significant contradiction between these two statements:

Wiikwajio wrote:I ask questions to calculate what an individual actually believes and not what they label themselves so that I can understand them.
…
What people presume about others often make discussions ridiculous.

The reason I find contradiction is because any calculation you (or anyone) might make about what someone else believes inherently includes a ridiculous amount of presumption.

That is why I ask questions. It reduces the presumptions but never eliminates it. It is a presumption to even believe what a person writes about their own belief.

1 Thes. 5: 21 wrote:Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

jnjnelson wrote:Notice that the scripture in 1st Thessalonians invites the reader to prove all things, not prove all people. Our discussions should be about diligently seeking the truth, not about diligently seeking to know whether specific individuals follow the truth.

I found no principled, rational justification in your comments for a discussion who's purpose includes separating individuals into different political camps.

People are things. But besides that their beliefs are things.

Are we not to be aware of the wolves in sheep clothing? I want to know who the wolves are. If you don't then that is certainly your choice but 45 years in politics has demonstrated to me that if you think the worst of people in politics you will seldom be disappointed. I have been stabbed in the back by people I thought I could trust to many times. I now seek to know them by their fruit. If that is not knowledge you seek then that is your choice. I hope you enjoy the pain.

If you find "no principled, rational justification in your comments for a discussion who's purpose includes separating individuals into different political camps" then I know know more about you.

When a missionary goes to up to a door and asks a question they are seeking to place that person in a religious camp. Politics is religion.

And they were rhetorical.

I would call myself a libertarian, in the sense of a traditional libertarian such as the Framers. As someone else said, that does not necessarily match with modern libertarian branches or party platforms.

I think one thing we forget is that people are free to make compacts politically as well as commercially. The Constitution, to some extent, follows this idea. Hence people can rightfully protect themselves against activities that, whilst not directly violating life, liberty and property, do morally (or, rather, immorally) have an effect. I see this largely as a function of states and smaller local governments and communities, rather than the Federal Government. To some extent the initial mutual consent of the constitution of a country must be taken into account and, of course, people should have the opportunity to make such compacts rather than being forced into them.

Wiikwajio wrote:If you find "no principled, rational justification in your comments for a discussion who's purpose includes separating individuals into different political camps" then I know know more about you.

What specifically do you know more about me?

Incidentally, I thought you can't know anything about me based on my words, that you can only presume things about me based on my words. Nonetheless, I'd be interested to know what you presume about me based on my statements - more clarification might heighten our understanding.

jnjnelson wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:If you find "no principled, rational justification in your comments for a discussion who's purpose includes separating individuals into different political camps" then I know know more about you.

What specifically do you know more about me?

Incidentally, I thought you can't know anything about me based on my words, that you can only presume things about me based on my words. Nonetheless, I'd be interested to know what you presume about me based on my statements - more clarification might heighten our understanding.

Please don't ask the Dr. that question Joel! He will be forced to tell you that you are a commie loving pond scum drinking socialist gadianton in training puke faced punk Mormon and it will get him banned from the site which will remove all my fun in life. I'm begging you to reconsider.

Mark wrote:Please don't ask the Dr. that question Joel! He will be forced to tell you that you are a commie loving pond scum drinking socialist gadianton in training puke faced punk Mormon and it will get him banned from the site which will remove all my fun in life. I'm begging you to reconsider.

My mistake. If your answer might precipitate such a response, Wiikwajio, I hereby withdraw my question.

jnjnelson wrote:

Mark wrote:Please don't ask the Dr. that question Joel! He will be forced to tell you that you are a commie loving pond scum drinking socialist gadianton in training puke faced punk Mormon and it will get him banned from the site which will remove all my fun in life. I'm begging you to reconsider.

My mistake. If your answer might precipitate such a response, Wiikwajio, I hereby withdraw my question.

I owe you one Bro. 8)

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:
So Ron Paul is not a Libertarian? He was registered Republican in the last presidential election.

Ron Paul and you are not in agreement of what libertarian even means.

Whether Ron Paul and I agree on all points was not the subject I brought up. I already know (and stated previously) that I don't agree with everything Ron Paul does. ...although I agree with most of it.

Wiikwajio wrote:And no, Ron Paul is not a Libertarian. He is a Republican. He may be a libertarian but you and he do not agree on several principle beliefs.

Ron Paul calls himself a Libertarian. Most people that voted for him recognize him as a Libertarian.

...and yet he ran as a Republican (to work within the 2-party-system).

Wiikwajio wrote:You truly are what is commonly called a conservative or even a Neocon. A libertarian or Libertarian you are not. This does not mean you are evil. I am certainly not a libertarian nor a Libertarian so I don't think it is a bad thing to be something other than a libertarian or a Libertarian.

According to Wikipedia:

Libertarianism is a political theory that advocates the maximization of individual liberty in thought and action[1][2] and the minimization or even abolition of the state.[3][4] Libertarians embrace viewpoints ranging from a minimal state (or minarchist) to anarchist.[5][2][6][7]

Libertarians have a variety of views on natural resources and property rights to which the terms "left" and "right" often are applied.[2] Some libertarians reject being described as "left" or "right."[8]

I advocate the maximization of individual Liberty... as Christ and his followers did in their side of the great War in Heaven.

I call myself a Libertarian. You disagree. I do not seek your approval, so I'm fine with that. (It goes along with my stance on Liberty... even people's Liberty to think incorrectly about something).

jnjnelson wrote:So is this a discussion about traffic laws or about separating individuals into political camps? It seems to me to be the latter.

I would update it to reflect Wiikwajio's soap box if I could.

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:Many, many words, and lots of questions as answers to questions.

You either do not have the answers you imply you do (because you don't hand them out), or you are unwilling to hand them out... either way you appear to be a waste of my time.

Christ answered questions with questions. Does he waste your time? When you are ready to answer my questions one for one then I will answer your questions one for one. I am not on the witness stand and you have refused to answer my questions. When you agree to answer my questions one for one then you will get answers. Until then I will treat you as you treat me. Golden rule and all that.

TonyOlsen wrote: I would ask you directly if you're breaking laws, but I doubt you would answer it directly... but it's worth a shot.

Well show me the law you think I may be breaking and I will tell you all I know about it if you will answer my questions in kind. If not then you do not want your question answered.

TonyOlsen wrote:Do you abide by all Federal and Local governmental laws?

Are you willing to answer my question? Mine would be give me the current definition of the U.S. Dollar as defined by the United States Congress as per Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

And your question is too vague to be answered directly. Tell me what law you are specifically asking about and I will respond IF you will answer my question in kind. I cannot tell you if I abide by all Federal and Local government laws because I do not know if such laws even apply to me. I certainly do not abide by Federal reporting laws concerning oil development and drilling because I am not required to. Many local laws do not apply to me. For example residents of Clark County that buy pistols in Clark County are required to register that pistol in 72 hours. I do not abide such law as per Webster's definition #3 as I do not "accept it without objection" since it is unconstitutional, I did not buy a pistol within 72 hours and I am not a "resident" of Clark County. So if a Cop asks me if my pistol is registered I would tell him to shut up, leave me alone and go away.

Main Entry: abide
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈbīd\
Function: verb
1 : to wait for : await
2 a : to endure without yielding : withstand b : to bear patiently : tolerate <cannot abide such bigots>
3 : to accept without objection <will abide your decision>
intransitive verb

TonyOlsen wrote:What's the exchange rate? If I answer one of your questions, will you answer one of mine?

One for one and you can ask first as you already have done and I have answered below. We also need to determine what on-line dictionary you want to use for words like "abide." As you can see your use of the word was VERY vague. Words often have many meanings so to properly ask your question you would need to use words that have specific meanings and ask me a non-vague question.

For example if you asked me if I believed in God and I said I did but did not tell you I believed that Thor was God then I would have answered truthfully but you would not have the answer to your question that you thought you had.

TonyOlsen wrote:Ah... now I understand you.

You appear to be very similar to a co-worker of mine at my last job. he also was a high-school drop out who went through severe low-self-esteem because he had been told for so long that he was a "good-for-nothing".

If there is one thing I do not suffer from it is low self-esteem when comparing myself to other humans. I am a published author, ran my own successful businesses and have been happily married to the same lady for 32 years. I have accomplished what many would consider to be miracles in court and politically. A few years ago I accomplished every single thing I had listed that I wanted to accomplish in my life and now have to write new list. I took a hardly breathing minor political party in Nevada and turned it into a power house in 4 years. I am now building an on-line news organization that has gone for 3000 readers a month to 10,000 in 6 months. I am at the top of my field in IRS/RFRA legal studies and preparation for criminal and civil cases. I am an expert witness. I have just accepted the job of Attorney General for a small but up-and-coming Religious internationally recognized sovereign neutral state. Self esteem problems, in comparing myself to other humans, is not a problem for me.

I just realize that my opinion with you has no value. I understand the person I am communicating with and so I give answers from people you MAY respect since mine would be of little to no value to you.

TonyOlsen wrote:...but you haven't answered the question as to whether you believe the Apostles pay taxes or not and whether they file tax-returns or not.

You seem to think that if the Apostles owe, you owe. That would be an assumption with no proof. If you owe it does not mean that I owe. This is back to the Thor/God question. Your questions are vague so answering them with a questions is often all I can do.

If you asked me do I believe in Jesus Christ and I was a Calvinist I could say "Yes" but it has little to no truth in it since Calvinists do not even know who Jesus Christ is. When you ask if I believe the Apostles pay taxes or not I could easily answer "Yes" since everyone pay taxes.

Do they file returns or not? I do not know. They certainly have not told you or I personally nor published it tot he best of my knowledge. It is speculation at best. I think there is one Apostle that had the opinion that they all filed and paid but then how would he know? Did he watch them file? Did he watch them pay income taxes? Did he even ask them? What did the form say? Were they required to file? Did they meet the filing limit requirement? Did they file a Utah Return? Do they have resident status in Utah? Are they required to file in Utah if the live in Germany?

I pay taxes. Eery time I buy gas I pay. I do not file returns because I am not required to do so. I cannot be required to do so until the government can prove many things. To date they have not even tried. Now if the Prophet wanted to fight the legality of the tax law he may do it the way Brigham Young fought polygamy laws and ask a member to challenge them so that he would be able to run the Church while the other man fought in Court. So if Benson or McKay or any other Apostle fought the IRS we may never even know. But by all means bring forth your evidence if you have proof.

TonyOlsen wrote:I don't know, and I don't really care to know, because I'm not seeking to support non-temperate blanket statements labeling all those pay taxes, when you believe they don't have to, as supporters of Socialism and evil.

If you do not know and do not care then why are you asking the questions? I can label people with what I do know. I know members are to eschew Socialism. I know what several different American English dictionaries define the word eschew to mean. I know that a Socialist is a person that practices socialism and I know that Social Security, Income tax, Government schools and the Federal Reserve System are all important parts of Marxism/Socialism. I know that if you practice several parts of the important doctrines of a religious belief (and socialism is a religious belief) then it is reasonable to say that person is a practicing whatever faith he is practicing in substantial ways. If I go to the Church of Thor and I wear mjolnir around my neck and want to go to Valhalla it would be reasonable to say I worship or follow Thor even if I go to the Mormon Church and practice some of their rites too.

Therefore it is very simple to state that if you are a practicing socialist you are not following the publish doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as members are to eschew socialism and other false isms.

It would be no more difficult than for you to label me an adulterer if I was having sex with a woman that was not my wife. Words have meaning. Doctrine that is clearly stated and has not been changed is doctrine no matter what apostles do or say or have an opinion about. Several Apostles have been exed. Official statements by the First Presidency are not opinions.

TonyOlsen wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote: ...

I do not remember using those words.

Not those "words"... but that "meaning"?

The way you think as to what words "mean" is one of the major problems in these discussions. You seem to think vague questions are not vague or that clear answers are not clear. I do not believe I used the words you used and I believe that my words did not say what you claim I said.

People that practice socialism are socialists unless Webster's is wrong:

Main Entry: so·cial·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-sh(ə-)list\
Function: noun
Date: 1827
1 : one who advocates or practices socialism

It is not vague or presumptive or assumptive. if you are practicing socialism then you are a socialist. Therefore I believe that every person that practices socialism is a socialist UNLESS they are being brutally forced and without even the choice of rebellion and/or war to practice that Satanic doctrine. If President Monson is practicing socialism, then according to Webster's dictionary President Monson is a socialist. There is no moral question. 1 + 1 = 2.

So IF you cannot be a faithful member of the church and be a practicing socialist then President Monson is not a faithful member according to THOSE parameters. Therefore the discussion must be: What is LDS official published doctrine on the subject? It is not what President Monson is or is not. The discussion is ONLY: What is the LDS official published doctrine on this subject? Then after that is decided and agreed upon it would have to be determined if President Monson was a practicing socialist. If he was AND the official published doctrine of the Church is that you cannot be a practicing socialist and a faithful member then 1+1=2. If A =B and B=C then C=A. Therefore If you cannot be a faithful member of the Church and be a practicing Socialist at the same time AND President Monson is a practicing Socialist THEN BY THOSE SET STANDARDS AND RULES President Monson could not be a faithful member of the Church. If there are OTHER parameters then the question changes as does the answer.

It is like this: If President Monson was currently a practicing polygamist and it is LDS official published doctrine that a member practicing polygamy must be excommunicated would President Monson be excommunicated for practicing polygamy? I think that will be my first question for you.

TonyOlsen wrote:There you go. Although that's more tame than you're previous statements on this, it still is the subject I'm addressing.

Ok... so let me try a more specific question:

"Do you believe that all non-liable apostles don't pay taxes?"

Or, in other words... according to your own terminology...

"Do you believe that any apostles are "not faithful members"?"

I believe that if the Official published doctrine of the church is: "Latter-day Saints can not be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies." And I believe that is the doctrine since I can find no other and it is still on LDS.org then if an Apostle is filing a non-required voluntary return that I believe obviously lends aid, encouragement or sympathy to the false doctrines of Fascism, Socialism, Marxism or Communism then any Apostle that is lending such aid, encouragement or sympathy to the false doctrines of false isms cannot, according the official published doctrine of the Church, that has not changed since it was stated, MUST BE unfaithful. A =B and B=C then C=A.

Either that or the official doctrine of the Church is false.

Now answer my question: If President Monson was currently a practicing polygamist and it is LDS official published doctrine that a member practicing polygamy must be excommunicated would President Monson be excommunicated for practicing polygamy?

Wiikwajio wrote: So if you want to take the time to debate these issues instead of thinking you can place me on the witness stand and demand that it is only my duty to answer questions, then let us go forward.

TonyOlsen wrote:I don't have as much time to devote to these forums as you appear to have.

I have played chess by mail. You have enough time to answer my questions if you have time to ask yours.

TonyOlsen wrote:Why should being called to be a witness trouble you so? Isn't that your duty, as a follower of Jesus Christ?

I am a student of Christ. He asked questions and refused to answer the questions of men that would not answer His questions. Naturally He knew that the men had motives that disagreed with Christ's beliefs as you do mine. The person asking the question has all the power. I do not allow men to have power over me because I render unto myself what is my own as I am commanded to do by Christ.

Matt: 21:23 ¶ And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a aprophet.
27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

So I will follow Christ's example and you will answer my questions in kind or I will not answer your questions any more.

Wiikwajio wrote: But if you want me to answer YOUR questions, you WILL answer mine also or I will continue to sidestep your questions like a 45 year politician can so easily do.

TonyOlsen wrote:You know... that's not necessarily a good talent to have...

But it is mine and Christ did it to the chief priests and the elders of the people so if Christ did it then I will be happy that He has given that talent to me and treasure it and not cast my pearls before swine.

I do not have time to answer all of your questions, but I have answered many and I feel you have not done likewise.

I feel you are wasting my time.

I do not trust you like I would trust the savior, so I don't put your answering questions with questions in the same classification as I would Christ's.

But, in order to simplify the complications you've added to this discussion, I'll answer 1 question for each new post you give answering one of my questions.

Wiikwajio wrote:I am now awaiting your answer to my question which is: If President Monson was currently a practicing polygamist and it is LDS official published doctrine that a member practicing polygamy must be excommunicated would President Monson be excommunicated for practicing polygamy?

I'll answer this question: Yes.

Please note how short I was able to answer your question. I challenge you do to likewise, if you can.

In return will you answer my following question:

Are there any federal or local laws that you know of that you do not abide-with, comply, obey, (or any other word intending to communicate what you understand that I'm asking)?

Wiikwajio wrote:

jnjnelson wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:...

It was ALWAYS about separating individuals into political camps.

I perceive absolutely no value whatsoever in such a discussion. Can you provide a principled, rational reason for such a discussion, please?

It is very difficult to discuss anything with anybody that is as complete as politics and religion.

For example:

...

Is it patriotic to refuse to obey unseen unwritten laws?

Should Christian obey evil laws?

Should Christian openly defy eil laws?

What is defined as an evil law?

I think your true beliefs are seeping out.

I suspect you believe that Christians should NOT obey evil laws, but that they shouldn't openly do so (which I believe is the reason you've been attempting to cleverly dodge my direct questions on the issue).

I would respect you more if you simply said that you didn't want to answer something than to dance around a subject in an attempt to derail it. Such actions I consider dishonest.

jnjnelson wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:… I ask questions to calculate what an individual actually believes and not what they label themselves so that I can understand them.

If you call me a Mormon I would be insulted. If you called me LDS or Christian I would not be insulted.

What people presume about others often make discussions ridiculous.

After all we are to: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thes. 5: 21

First: did you want me to answer any of the fourteen questions you asked, or were they rhetorical? I would answer the questions, but I feel doing so would be increasingly off-topic for this particular thread, and each question might merit its own thread.


Second: I find significant contradiction between these two statements:

Wiikwajio wrote:I ask questions to calculate what an individual actually believes and not what they label themselves so that I can understand them.
…
What people presume about others often make discussions ridiculous.

The reason I find contradiction is because any calculation you (or anyone) might make about what someone else believes inherently includes a ridiculous amount of presumption.

1 Thes. 5: 21 wrote:Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Notice that the scripture in 1st Thessalonians invites the reader to prove all things, not prove all people. Our discussions should be about diligently seeking the truth, not about diligently seeking to know whether specific individuals follow the truth.

I found no principled, rational justification in your comments for a discussion who's purpose includes separating individuals into different political camps.

Well said.

I myself use also labels (like most), but I do not mean to imply absolutes. I call myself Libertarian even though I do not agree with everything in the modern Libertarian planks. I call myself a Mormon/Latter-Day-Saint even though I do not yet perfectly keep all of God's commandments and am in need of repentance. I call Obama a Socialist, even though he probably hasn't embraced ALL aspects of Socialism (but just "most" of them).

I call something red even if there's a little green and blue in it. It's close enough to communicate the general thought I intended to communicate. I could attempt to get fancy with other lesser-known words to describe the color, but then I would lose the simplicity of the message and part of my audience as well.

Wiikwajio wrote:Are we not to be aware of the wolves in sheep clothing? I want to know who the wolves are. If you don't then that is certainly your choice but 45 years in politics has demonstrated to me that if you think the worst of people in politics you will seldom be disappointed.

I can't imagine the people of Enoch thinking that way.

I prefer to say "Love is free. Trust is earned". I aspire to show love to all, but trust only those worthy of trust. So, such actions of Love will never include "casting pearls before swines", but instead casting things that I can afford to lose... things that, in themselves, produce the fruit meriting the action... such as offering to help, being kind, caring, etc.

Wiikwajio wrote:I have been stabbed in the back by people I thought I could trust to many times. I now seek to know them by their fruit.

I can empathize with your bad experiences (having experienced similar things in my own life), but does your resulting approach conflict with your ability to Love? Did the knives in your back cause damage to your heart?

Love is free. Trust is earned.

You can love everyone even if you don't yet trust anyone.

Mark wrote:

jnjnelson wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:If you find "no principled, rational justification in your comments for a discussion who's purpose includes separating individuals into different political camps" then I know know more about you.

What specifically do you know more about me?

Incidentally, I thought you can't know anything about me based on my words, that you can only presume things about me based on my words. Nonetheless, I'd be interested to know what you presume about me based on my statements - more clarification might heighten our understanding.

Please don't ask the Dr. that question Joel! He will be forced to tell you that you are a commie loving pond scum drinking socialist gadianton in training puke faced punk Mormon and it will get him banned from the site which will remove all my fun in life. I'm begging you to reconsider.

jnjnelson wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:If you find "no principled, rational justification in your comments for a discussion who's purpose includes separating individuals into different political camps" then I know know more about you.

What specifically do you know more about me?

Incidentally, I thought you can't know anything about me based on my words, that you can only presume things about me based on my words. Nonetheless, I'd be interested to know what you presume about me based on my statements - more clarification might heighten our understanding.

I now know that you CLAIM that you do not like separating people by their own proclamations and political statements about themselves.

I do not understand why you would claim that but that is what I must currently believe.